Pressure is important, but a sack has a much bigger effect on an offense. A good QB can still make a positive play with pressure. A sack is an instant loss of yards and the play is over, not including the added effect of a fumble or anything. It's like a corner playing great coverage on a WR, but not being able to make a play on the ball. It will dissuade the QB from throwing it to the WR, but the WR can still make a play and hurt you.

A sack *is* a type of pressure. It's one of the 5 outcomes that can result from pressure.

And to say that a sack has more of an impact than any other type of pressure is wrong, because a pressure that leads to a quarterback throwing an interception is far better than a sack that simply leads to another down.

And repeated pressures can harry the best quarterbacks into being ineffective for the entire game, whereas a great QB can take a sack or two and otherwise not feel pressure and continue playing at a high level the entire game.

It's the pressure itself, and the volume and frequency of it, that's the most important thing for a defense to generate.

Whether that pressure ends in a tackle of the QB (sack), or something else, is a matter of tackling technique, QB awareness of the pass rush, game-plan, and/or plain luck. The pressure itself is important, and what happens after the pressure is achieved is mostly tangential.

Quote:

Sacks as a stat can be misconstrued and overrated in terms of pass rush ability, but the effects of a sack should be undeunderestimated. Actually hitting the QB and getting sacks has a considerably bigger mental effect than just getting pressure.

I don't think you understand the concept of "pressure" as an umbrella term. Hitting the QB and getting sacks are all forms of pressure.

And it's not even an either/or. I'm not debating Pressure VERSUS Sacks.

Sacks are a form of pressure. What I'm arguing is that people need to look BEYOND sacks and at pressure as a whole, instead of just at sacks, which are a subsection of pressure. Sacks are a very incomplete picture of a pass rush's effectiveness.

Getting consistent pressure on every down is the ideal but very few teams can do that In reality. Even if the defense has the talent it just doesn't work out that way. Splash plays make the biggest difference. Finishing when you get to the QB is important. Good Qbs still gash you for big yards when they get pressured, running or throwing.

I think we all actually agree that sacks arent a complete picture of a passrush, but the still are important in games.

A fumble caused by the pass rush is by definition a sack according to the NFL rules.

But the majority of sacks are not also accompanied by fumbles. If they were, obviously, they are just as good as pressure that forced an interception to be thrown.

Quote:

Getting consistent pressure on every down is the ideal but very few teams can do that In reality. Even if the defense has the talent it just doesn't work out that way. Splash plays make the biggest difference. Finishing when you get to the QB is important. Good Qbs still gash you for big yards when they get pressured, running or throwing.

All teams get pressure outside of just sacks. It's the nature of pressure. Sacks aren't isolated situations, they are merely pressure that *happens* to turn into a tackle.

The tackle that makes a pressure a sack is often a function of QB awareness, game-plan, tackling form of the pass rusher, and just plain dumb luck. The more predictable and descriptive event is the pass rush that preceded the tackle (sack).

The sack itself is merely a pressure accompanied by a tackle. You need to stop fixating on the tackle which makes a pressure a "sack" and focus instead not on the tackle, but on the pressure generated.

Pressure is important, but a sack has a much bigger effect on an offense.

That's not always true. A pressure that causes a quarterback to throw an interception has a bigger impact than a sack that doesn't cause a fumble. It's also not necessarily true, depending on the situation. A pressure on 3rd down that causes the quarterback to throw an incomplete pass has a bigger impact than a sack on 1st down.

EDIT: I understand where AcheTen is coming from. Sacks are important, but there other results of a pressure that are just as impactful, if not more.

I agree with TFL, but we have to be hush hush so it doesn't become passe.

I understand why it is underrated. TFL usually come on busted running plays, where usually it is a couple lost yards. Going per rush, you expect to gain about 3.5 to 4 yards. Means about a loss of about 5.5-6 yards.

With a sack, they more often happen further back, plus the average per pass attempt is higher. Totally arbitrary, but lets say average sack yards lost is about five. The average yards per attempt is 7. That is an average loss of 12 yards per sack, almost twice as much as a TFL.

To throw two cents, the problem with pressure is it becomes relative, even more so than sacks. A player can pressure the QB, who slips up field and rumbles for a huge run. That being said, a pass rusher who forces a QB to throw the ball in the dirt twice for another who gets a sack, yes pressure is underrated.

Too much emphasis is put on pressure statistics as well as sacks. The thing is that too many people assume a pass rush attempt is an equivalent shot at a pressure for every rusher, when the truth is that every team and every player has different keys and assignments on every play.

Chandler Jones and Jason Babin may both line up on the outside shade of a TE on a given passing play, but that by no means that their responsibilities are remotely the same. Jason Babin in Philly would oftentimes come out of an exaggerated 4 point stance a technique that sacrifices a bit of weight leverage for low positioning and a faster jump off the snap. This may allow him to generate more "pressure", but at the same time this has taken him out of the run game, and has made it far more likely that the tackle will simply be able to run him outside of the play. In doing so oftentimes it gives the QB a spot to rollout or step up to which can oftentimes lead to the biggest plays of the game.

On the other hand a guy like Jones may be rushing the passer in name, but his keys extend beyond that. He may have to hold the edge at the POA or he may have to hold up the RB if he tries to get a clean release. If said running back does go out for a pass Jones may have to hold off and time a jump to influence the angle of the pass out of the QB's hand. It's not simply about getting after the QB for all coaches, and technique plays a much bigger role than anyone really notes.

Also, some teams are a lot more creative with their pass rush packages, and the stunts they run may be to the benefit of some guy's "pressure" stats while to the detriment of others. Aldon Smith, Von Miller, Clay Matthews, and other smaller quicker guys have the benefit of stunting a lot more than other guys do. This jacks up those pressure stats as well since a lot of the pressure is by design as much as the individual talents of those players.

To me a edge player should be able to collapse the pocket in a direct-ish route to the QB, disengage, and finish all while maintaining good run game awareness, being aware of screens, and knowing when to stop their rush to get their hands up. If a guy can do that then give me the 6-8 sack moderate rush Jones type vs. the 12 sack high "pressure" guy like Babin any day.

Pass rush productivity is a decent stat to take a look at, and like with most stats you'll find a strong correlation with people who we perceive as being good and people who perform well in pass rush productivity. However, it is not an end all since assignments vary so much across teams, and it has no way of accounting for double teams. Saying that player x got 50 pressures in 250 pass rushing attempts, and player y got 35 pressures in 250 pass rushing attempts does next to nothing to differentiate one player from another, or to properly encompass that player's success within his role.

Catches - A reception in and of itself is utterly worthless. You can catch a pass and lose yardage. That's a bad thing - you'd be better off dropping the ball. It's what you did on the reception that matters. Anyone can catch a screen pass. This statistic is single-handedly responsible for anyone giving a rat's ass about Wes Welker. He gets bonus points because it takes him 120 catches to do what a good receiver would do in 80. Derek Loville once caught 87 passes in a season.

Tackles - The biggest problem with the statistic is it's not even accurate. They factor in these bogus things called "assists," which can mean anything from a guy falling/diving on a pile to just being in the vicinity of the play. But in addition to that, tackles are not remotely all created equal. Pushing a guy out of bounds on an angle because he happens to run into your area of the field after gaining 15 yards is not something to write home about.

Passer Rating - The flaw with this statistic is the emphasis it places on TD/INT ratio. Throwing a low INT percentage is nice and is definitely important, but a lack of TD passes is not necessarily a QB's fault. If you're handing it to Emmitt Smith every time you get inside the 10, what are you gonna do? QBs can play some really lousy games and have "good" passer ratings, and they can play a really impressive game and have a so-so rating because they only threw 1 TD or less.

Then on the subject of "measurables"...I'll just throw out an eye roller...

"Dis back isn't big enuff to handle 25, 30 carries per game."

One, if a back carried the ball 30 times per game, he would wind up with 480 carries in a season...the most in NFL history...by a landslide (Larry Johnson holds the record currently, with 416). 25 per game would be 400 in a season, the 6th most in NFL history.

Two, a lack of size has absolutely nothing to do with a player's durability. In fact, if anything, it's just the opposite. If a player weighs too much for his joints/tendons, there's more strain being put on them and they're more likely to suffer damage.

This "absorbing blows" concept people have with football is hilarious to me. Like weighing more is going to "insulate" their body...and from what, I don't know. I guess every football injury is a broken rib or a ruptured organ or something. It ain't the knees, ankles, hips, hamstrings, shoulders, heads, and feet that are getting hurt or anything.

"He needs to put on 10-15 pounds of muscle in order to HOLD UP at the NFL level!"

In reality, there are two types of "injury prone" players:

1. The guys who weigh too much for their frame.
2. The guys who are tightly wound. The track star types whose hamstrings could snap at any time. Putting on weight won't fix that. In fact, it will only cause more problems.

The problem of some stats as mention in this thread is they do not tell the whole story. It could be catches, sacks, tackles blah blah blah.

Catches - They MATTER, sure if you have 120 catches but they all come from screen plays or shorter routes it might not be IMPRESSIVE.

But what moves the chains and keeps offenses going is not trying to throw 50 yard bombs, it is picking up consistent yardage and converting 3rd downs into 1st downs. Not everything in football has to have flash, give me someone that if i need a 3rd down conversion and i know will be there when i throw it. Sure you need to keep the D honest and stretch them out with the deep ball, but slot receivers are essential to any great Offense.

Size - It is overrated and I agree with most of what has been posted thus far. if a WR is 6'5" like a brandon marshall what good does that do if he isnt winning jump balls in the end zone? Give me a 5'8" guy like steve smith in his prime that is fiesty.

If people are going to say "so and so" is short or tall in a good or bad light sit back and realize being 6'4" is only good if you can catch and run routes. Being short is only bad if you cant catch and run routes.

QB play in general - I think yards are highly overrated in the sense that you, your grandmother and the paraplegic at the hospital can throw for a ton of yards in todays NFL...Drew Brees broke the record, Matt Stafford almost broke it, like 5 people have thrown for 5000 yards in the last couple years like it was nothing.

BUT i do think turnovers have gotten overlooked, when someone like Cam Newton starts to get annointed as a GOOD qb when he had 22 turnovers in one season is ridiculous(just using for an example) in todays NFL flash is rewarded over of solid consistency.

People would rather see a 400 yard passing day with 3 INTs and a team loss(but hey he got me 25 points fantasy) over a 200 yard 2 TD win. yards and TD's somehow cover up interceptions and loses, maybe due to fantasy football. I think int's obviously could come off of tip passes, a WR dropping a pass into a defenders hands, but more often than not they come from a QB's bad decision making and could be devistating on the teams chances to win.

Vernon Davis and Gronkowski are good blockers. There is still such a thing as a complete TE. There just aren't many of them.

It is a dying breed, with less and less teams focusing on power football, and more spreading it out there is less focus for a TE to have good/great blocking skills and instead convert athletes like jimmy graham or draft TE's that are nothing more than slower big WR's.

W/L when it is used as an individual stat for QBs. They get too much credit for winning and too much of the blame for losing. There are many examples of college QBs who won a ton of games and never amounted to anything as a pro (Leinart, McCoy, Russell), while also some who played on lousier teams and turned out to be good pros (Rivers, Cutler, Favre).

Passing yards no question for me. At least with the way the rules are set up, years ago passing yards meant more but now the yards are a lot of fluff. Whether it is spread offenses, blown coverages or passing yards against prevent defense some stat lines are very misleading and inflate numbers, i'm looking at you Stafford. But the biggest thing is all these screen passes that completely inflate numbers, I actually think yards from screen passes or anything thrown behind the line of scrimmage should be a separate stat from passing yards.

Height would be top of my list, with the exception of a very select couple of positions you use the top of your head or the height of your head for nothing or incredibly infrequently at best (QB an exception obviously). Standing reach and wingspan are far more important to me. In several positions where leverage matters, being shorter is often an advantage.

After that... bench press at the combine. It's an endurance measurement in an explosive strength based sport. A single rep or even 3 rep test would give a far better indicator of football related strength and even then it would be a pretty poor representation. The combine bench press would be the equivalent of replacing the 40 with a 2 mile run.

Tackles almost certainly are the worst stat, they give you very little information in isolation.